Angel Versetti

JOHN MEARSHEIMER – “FALSE PROMISE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS”, 1995, SUMMARY

 Context: early-1990s, post-Cold War Era just started, policy-makers attempting to create security
arrangements in Europe based on international institutions, NOT on balance of power politics.
Strong belief that “institutions are key to maintain peace in Europe” (ROBERT KEOHANE). Idea not to
have 1 single institution, but a “framework of complementary, mutually reinforcing institutions”

 Purpose of article: to analyse the claim that institutions prevent war and promote peace. Examine
2 opposing IR philosophies: Realism vs Institutionalism. Institutionalism has 3 main theories: liberal
institutionalism, collective security and critical theory.

REALISM INSTITUTIONALISM

Institutions do NOT affect international stability “Oh yes, they do!”

Institutions reflect real distribution of powers and
are only based on self-interested powerful states
and their calculations. They have no effect on state
behaviour. Only marginal effect on world politics
“We disagree. Institutions do alter state preferences and
change behaviour. They discourage self-interested
calculations and relative power estimations. Institutions
are independent variables and they DO move states away
from war”

All realists agree that institutions don’t matter All institutionalists agree they matter, but they disagree
on HOW they influence politics. Hence 3 main theories.

 How to assess these theories: Ask questions: What are institutions? How do they work to cause
peace? Does evidence support these theories?

 Definition of institutions by author: institutions are a set of rules stipulating how states should
cooperate and compete with each other. They delimit acceptable and unacceptable forms of
behaviour by states, which are negotiated among them and then lead to mutual acceptance of
higher norms which are “the standards of behaviour defined in terms of rights and obligations”
formalized in treaties and agreements. Institutions “create decentralised cooperation of individual
sovereign states without any effective mechanism or command”

 REALISM

o Security competition in the world is always occurring due to constant distrust between states. States
always look for opportunities to betray/outsmart each other. They want both relative and absolute
power supremacy. States always possess military power and can attack each other

o Problems with cooperation: relative-gains can be different for various countries and thus will
discourage them from cooperation; cheating concern – the “cooperating” country can be a free-
rider or worse, friend-turned-enemy.

o Historical evidence: cooperation did not prevent WWI and WWII

o Institutions are created as nothing more than a platform for the powerful states to control them or
exert their self-interested power ambitions. Realpolitik has strong presence in institutions

 LIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM
 Angel Versetti

o Modest assertions about institutions: does not ask whether institutions cause peace, but explores
cases of cooperation when state interests are not fundamentally opposed; deals only with political
economy, leaving the question of war and peace unanswered

o Main focus: economic and environmental cooperation; security issues are largely ignored

o “Goal-directed behaviour that entails mutual policy adjustments and compromise so that all sides
end up better than they would otherwise be”. If states are fundamentally opposed to each other,
the theory breaks down and they can go to war even with institutions.

o Institutions push states away from war. However, institutions cannot always prevent wars.

o Problems/weaknesses: this theory does not give sound basis to understand international relations
in the modern world; it completely avoids questions of war/peace and security. Finally there is little
empirical evidence to support it.

 COLLECTIVE SECURITY THEORY

o Directly deals with int’l peace and recognises the preeminence of military power in world politics

o Key strategy to maintain peace is proper management of military power through institutions

o Disagrees with realists’ balance-of-power logic or traditional alliances

o Based on trust that other countries will come to help, if a member of institutional system is attacked

o Threat of overwhelming force to aggressors or violators of law (Security Council)

o Problems/weaknesses: supporters of this theory believe that states by default should trust each
other, but does not explain how to achieve that in the world of military power and uncertain
intentions; little support for theory in historical record (League of Nations was a total failure to
maintain peace); today only peacekeeping operations can maintain peace and only to small extent

 CRITICAL THEORY

o The boldest theory: claims that not only peace can be maintained, but that state behaviour can be
changed. It wants to transform international system into “world society” where states are guided by
“norms of trust and sharing”; war and security competition will be problem of past in the world of
real “peace system”.

o Believes that the way we think, perceive and talk about the world shapes future political practices;
ideas as driving force of history and IR. If realist theories could be undermined and refuted then
states’ behaviour itself would change; any hegemonic ideas should be criticised

o Problems/weaknesses: it does not successfully challenge realism; it has ambitious goals but does
not talk about how to achieve them (how to change state behaviour); their arguments are
inconsistent with the theory itself; empirical evidence generally contradicts this theory

 Author’s Thesis/Conclusion on the Article: institutions have minimal effect on state behaviour and
have little promise to maintain stability. All 3 institutionalist theories are flawed both in their logic
and in lack of empirical evidence in historical record. Realist theory has over 1500 years of
documented history as evidence in its favour and thus should not be lightly abandoned